Sin, will, and theism

Quoting Gregory

So it seems we can know that classical theism is false

Well, at least that the classical 'God' is unlikely, due to self-contradictions. It's hard to sit on a fence, so we would like to know, but all we have is probability to go on.

Very few people ever get much certainly about things in life through their own intellect

Kant quoted with approval the words of poet Haller: "The world with all its faults/Is better than a realm of will-less angels." I would add a God who doesn't have to strive to that list.

"And what a sigh of relief men will breathe when they suddenly discover that the living God, the true God, in no way resembles Him whom reason has shown them until now!" Lev Shestov

Quoting Gregory

So it seems we can know that classical theism is false

The classical God lived in the firmament, aka the sky. They thought the sky was a hard dome. It isn't a dome, so classical theism is false.

To the oppressed, the inability to forgive is a curse. Bitterness mangles the soul and transforms the innocent heart into that of a monster. This is the oppressor's final victory: that he turned you into something just like himself.

The way out is through love, and by love, forgiveness. How does one come by this love? Through divine grace. This is Christianity.

Reply to Gregory
"Classical Theism" is only what you decide it will be. It is not a thing delivered to a person with an instruction sheet.
If it were, then we would not have to talk about it.

Christianity doesn't just say that God helps you with grace to forgive yourself and others. Many say that Jesus's death washes the sin away (is the "prime mover" in this). Catholicism in particular say the words of a priest wash away sin. This is an immoral position to hold. Guilt is personal, so only something personally done can wash it away. Forget placing it all on someone innocent

If someone can commit murder and God can step in and wipe it clean, that's evil. I don't want to hear excuses like "he repented and so God wiped it clean". If it is true and complete repentance than it would wipe one clean by itself and what even is left after that for God to wipe clean? God is irrelevent to this, except as a helper. We all need help, but forget asking "God" for it. Many of us swim in Kantian ether all day. No chance of something coming from another dimension. No elephants walking through my area from dimension 11

Quoting Gregory

If someone can commit murder and God can step in and wipe it clean, that's evil.

Yes, so easy to erase. One can also say an act of contrition, avoiding the confessional and the hundred Hail Mary and Our Father prayers. And to think of the time wasted hearing about mortal sins sending one to Hell and more. No dinosaurs living on my Ark.

Christianity has also hijacked the idea of a family friendly culture. It use to be Church law in the dark ages that children of priests were to be enslaved. Instead of getting to know their father, they were made slaves.

The old testament says teaches that God can order you to slay your family. This was never revoked in the new testament. Christians allegiance is to someone besides their families, if you are to follow the Bible

Quoting Gregory

Christians allegiance is to someone besides their families

Worship 'God' over all else, all the time. That's why humans were created on Earth.

"The old testament says teaches [sic] that God can order you to slay your family. This was never revoked in the new testament."

The incident with Abraham seems to reflect a moon worship sort of situation. The meaning of the story was to show that a better way of worshipping was replacing that.

There is no Bible teaching without its meaning, despite what Pat Robertson says.

As for your earlier question I think that the contrast will become clearer when times become appreciably harder than they were in Kant's day bless 'im.

I find this quote by Richard Dawkins to be insightful: "An existing god therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a god which did not exist."

Dawkins is taken by many theists as spouting nonsense. That the quote from Christopher seems in line with what the East says actually matters in ontology. I want to read Evola's book East and West next, as soon as I order it

Reply to Gregory I don't follow your argument. Indeed, you make some claims that seem incoherent to me. You say that God's goodness and his power are the same - but that's confused. God's goodness is going to consist in his approving of himself. God's power consists in the fact he can do anything.
Anyway, I don't yet see a problem - forgiving someone involves adopting a certain attitude towards them. Doing something wrong involves doing something God doesn't want you to do (more than that, no doubt, but at least that). What's incoherent about the idea of someone doing something that someone else doesn't want them to do, and then that person forgiving them? I'm not yet seeing the problem.

God's forgiveness is completely external to the sinners soul. Christians most often think God can remove the sin. Calvinist think God's does this against the sinners will. These are all immoral doctrines. My other point was the work is good because doing something hard is wholesome. A God who was forever and is forever in eternal bliss knows nothing of this. So although all objects or even natures could be reflected by God nature, not all actions can. Therefore he is not the greatest being

Reply to Gregory I still don't see what problem you're highlighting. God is good just if God approves of himself. So he can do what he wants, as long as he approves of himself he will be good.

If you want to make stuff up (faith) and believe in your lazy God, that's on you

Quoting Gregory

Any grain of effort is greater than any merely possessed good. So God would have to be something of a god (lower case) like the Greeks thought, in order to make sense according to reason

I'm confused. Why would you criticize God and then be open to a god? If you don't like "G"od then why stop your attack at "g"od?

Wouldn't it be better to say that there are no gods but only humans, some more powerful than others and everyone knows how that plays out - the weak/poor suffer and the rich/powerful have fun?

As I pointed out, to strive for goodness is better than merely to posses it. This certainly must apply to "God", and even to us if we are God in some way. We become better by work and virtue, not by the grace of an idolized divine nature

Quoting Gregory

As I pointed out, to strive for goodness is better than merely to posses it. This certainly must apply to "God", and even to us if we are God in some way. We become better by work and virtue, not by the grace of an idolized divine nature

Oh ok!

Better the tree that stands in the storm
than what's inside it, the cozy worm
but...some say
to bend and flex to the wind is the way

there is grandeur in blood and sweat
yet Sisyphus will always lose the bet
roll the rock to the peak
always the valley the rock will seek

2 Corinthians 11:30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.

This is the consequence of playing responsibility on some perfect "nature". "The Lord worketh in me" they say. 2 Corinthians 10:17 “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

And then there is the temptation: 1 Corinthians 3:21 "So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours"

Quoting Gregory

The fact remains, for there to be a God he would have to have the power to forgive sin.

That is an assumption to a power that we all have.

In fact, as victims to sin, we have the first right of forgiveness and not some god who cannot possibly be hurt by us puny humans.

You seem to have put restrictions on god by saying he would have to have some power.

How do you happen to know what a supernatural being can have and cannot have?

7th hand hear say or a book of myths?

Regards
DL

Quoting Gregory

Whenever he applies his power, which is identical to his goodness

Goodness??

Do you see a lot of good in Yahweh and others who would use genocide and kill when they could just as easily do what Jesus said he came to do, --- which was cure and not kill?

Show the goodness in genocide or a god who would use it please.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gregory

So it seems we can know that classical theism is false

If by classical you mean the mainstream garbage religions we now suffer, I agree.

That is caused by the literal reading of myths.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

Quoting frank

Through divine grace. This is Christianity.

True, while Christians ignore the fact that their free will is being manipulated and denied by a god whose scriptures say decides in all of us who will believe or have faith or not by god's hardening of our hearts, or not, with his grace.

That is how stupid and immoral the Christian ideology is. A vile slave making, homophobic and misogynous ideology.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gregory

This is an immoral position to hold. Guilt is personal, so only something personally done can wash it away. Forget placing it all on someone innocent

Have you ever tried to talk morals to Christians?

They always run for the hills as they cannot justify their genocidal god, let alone his vile and immoral ways.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

That is how stupid and immoral the Christian ideology is

What moral framework are you employing here?

Quoting frank

What moral framework are you employing here?

All morals are subjective and I am using the system prescribed in scriptures which is basically the Golden Rule, even though that rule is a lot older than Christianity and Judaism.

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

If you allow others to set your morality, especially Christianity with it's immoral genocidal god, then you should wonder what in hell are you doing?

Especially given their record of immoral homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

All morals are subjective

You mean all moral statements are subjectively true? Are they also objectively true?

Quoting frank

You mean all moral statements are subjectively true? Are they also objectively true?

For the one individual, I guess we can say that his moral decision is subjective and once his decision is made, it might become objective to him alone.

Since it is individual and subjective at the beginning of the evaluation process, I don't think I would say it has become objectively true.

Objective to me means that there is always only one answer to a moral tenet and I do not know of any tenet that does not begin it's evaluation from a subjective POV.

What would you say is an objective moral tenet?

Regards
DL

Quoting frank

frank

Let me amend my statement of not finding any objective moral tenets.

I might have found two but have never really had a full debate on them.

One of those is subject to a subjective decision leading it to being objective in all the scenarios I can think of while the other seems to be the only pure objective tenet that I can think of that does not need a subjective view, or perhaps better said, the subjective view always leads to showing it is an objective moral tenet in all situation.

I will put then down after I see what you come up with.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

What would you say is an objective moral tenet?

Moral statements are always taken to be objectively truth apt by people who use them, which just means they aren't considered to be matters of opinion. For instance, if a cop runs a prostitution ring, I would say that's immoral. Particularly, I have in mind the betrayal of society that's involved there. Yes, it hurts my feelings, and I suppose there's a subjective aspect to that, but when I say it's immoral, I specifically do not mean that it's just my opinion that it's bad.

Quoting frank

if a cop runs a prostitution ring, I would say that's immoral.

Is it as immoral if the cop took the ring over to stop the pimp from abusing his girls?

I knew a prostitute one time who became one to end her abuse at home and to be able to afford to take her younger sister away from her abusive father? Abuse was running at about 40% of all girls ate that time. It is not quite that high today but still unacceptable.

What is that ring was full of that type of abused prostitute?

Is it wrong to use those prostitutes and force them into more abusive or lower class circumstances?

Such questions are subjective for the reasons I just put.

You might think it evil but I might not without more information due to what I know as compared to what you know.

As promised. The only two moral tenets I think might be objective and always true are ---

1. Though shalt not kill when you can cure.
2. The good or needs of the many outweighs the good or needs of the few.

That last needs a subjective decision first while # 1 might not.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

Is it as immoral if the cop took the ring over to stop the pimp from abusing his girls?

If you really think the issue is a matter of opinion, then why are you suggesting that I might be wrong? Just honor my opinion and move on.

Reply to Gregory No, the point is you haven't articulated a coherent problem.

Quoting frank

If you really think the issue is a matter of opinion, then why are you suggesting that I might be wrong?

I didn't.
I just complicated things for you to show how morals are all subjective.

Respect and honor have to be earned. You have yet to earn it.

Regards
DL

Quoting Bartricks

No, the point is you haven't articulated a coherent problem.

How about faith leading to the idol worship of a genocidal and evil god while thinking him good?

Regards
DL

Reply to Gnostic Christian Bishop I do not understand what you are getting at. Whether a god exists or not has nothing to do with what belief in such a being might inspire people to do.

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

I didn't.

Then what was the story about the abused women supposed to do if not appeal to pity and bring me to accept that sometimes it's right for a cop to run a prostitution ring?

Quoting Bartricks

I do not understand what you are getting at.

Do you think that thinking an evil genocidal prick of a god like Yahweh is a good god is a good idea?
Quoting Bartricks

Whether a god exists or not has nothing to do with what belief in such a being might inspire people to do.

I agree.

The writings of said god is what should be the guide and for a human to think that a genocidal prick is a good god shows poor guidance by Christianity, be their prick of a god be real or not.

Would you let someone teach your children that genocide is done by good people And good gods?

Regards
DL

Quoting frank

Then what was the story about the abused women supposed to do if not appeal to pity and bring me to accept that sometimes it's right for a cop to run a prostitution ring?

I did not want to engage your pity.

Such a woman would tell you to shove your pity.

If it is really in you, then pay her for her time so she can keep protecting her younger sister and buy her pimp a drink for helping protect prostitutes who likely do not want to be in that profession.

Regards
DL

Reply to Gnostic Christian Bishop I'm not opposed to prostitution. I'm opposed to cops deciding for themselves which laws to enforce. If you dont agree, I think you're wrong.

That's what we mean by morality: that it's not a matter of opinion.

Quoting frank

frank

Most moral tenets are subjective and it is moral for a sister to try to save her sister from abuse.

If you don't agree, I think you're wrong.

If not opinion then name a few objective moral tenets. You just naming them objective without examples is not the way to show why you hold your poor opinion.

Regards
DL

So according to you:

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

It is moral for a sister to try to save her sister from abuse.

If you don't agree, I think you're wrong.

And yet you maintain that all moral statements are merely subjectively true. You appear to be contradicting yourself.

Quoting frank

And yet you maintain that all moral statements are merely subjectively true. You appear to be contradicting yourself.

Never, unless the question or scenario changes.

We are talking of a specific case. My subjective moral decision is that that girl is doing the right thing.

You are still not showing any of the objective moral tenets you say exist.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

And yet you maintain that all moral statements are merely subjectively true. You appear to be contradicting yourself.
— frank

Never, unless the question or scenario changes.

So you don't maintain that moral statements are subjectively true?

Is English not your first language? You aren't making sense.

Quoting frank

So you don't maintain that moral statements are subjectively true?

I do until I see what you would call an objective moral tenet.

You have not given me anything to analyse of opine on, as requested.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

I do until I see what you would call an objective moral tenet.

You provided a statement that you believe is objectively true. Let me explain:

Suppose you and I are standing around a table that has a coffee cup on it. The question we'll ponder is whether the handle is on the left side or the right side of the cup.

Can you see how this question only has subjectively true answers? If it's on the left for me, I wouldn't demand that it also be on the left for you. It very well may be on your right.

Now we ponder the question: Is the cup made of copper? This question only has objectively true answers. By this, we mean that if it's a true statement that it's made of copper, this statement should be true for everyone. So if I see that it's made of copper, I expect you to agree with that.

So:

Subjectively true statements = I don't expect you to agree with me, but you might.

Objectively true statements = I expect you to agree with me

So when you stated that you believe it's moral for the woman to help her sister, and that if I disagree with you, I'm wrong: you were offering up a moral statement that you believe to be objectively true.

That's how it works.

Quoting frank

frank

I am ot bad at thinking analogically but cups have no morals.

Regards
DL

Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop

I am ot bad at thinking analogically but cups have no morals.

I agree. That's why I deprive them of their coffee every chance I get.

:gasp:

Meany.

Regards
DL